Critical Moment for the Computer Society of India

Computer Society of India, founded in 1965, ran into serious problems over the last few years. Warring parties went to court. The High Court of Bombay has now appointed a three-member committee and has asked this committee to hold elections for the immediate future. All well-wishers of the CSI are grateful to the honorable court and wish all success to the three-member committee. The task immediately at hand is the conduct of a fair election and bringing CSI back to normal operation. Members need to vote and make this a successful election. This may be the last chance to revive the Society. No vote should be cast for doubtful candidates and unheard-of candidates, if any. 

I will look farther ahead into the future. What changes should we contemplate? What should we learn from past? What weaknesses do we have and which of these can we rectify? Undoubtedly, our elected bodies in future will consider such issues and take suitable action. Hopefully they would amend the Bylaws of CSI to make it a healthier organization.

Let me exercise my rights as a retired old soldier of CSI and share my thoughts! When the Society started in 1965, computer science and technology were in their infancy as academic disciplines. So, there was no question of asking for a professional qualification of members. The leaders in the profession came from different disciplines. However, as the country developed its university courses in the computer area, CSI did not move to setting tighter standards for admitting new members. Normally, a degree relevant to the area, or passing examinations to show equivalent knowledge, should have been prescribed. Successful societies around the world follow these practices. I believe that CSI should take steps in this direction in future.

Another problem faced by CSI has been with elections. I am told that the fraction of members who vote has often been around 20%. The number of ballots sent by post and returned as undeliverable was often higher than the number of votes cast! There was a fear that if the information in these bounced ballots fell into wrong hands, it would lead to fake voting. CSI was continuing to grow meanwhile. Online voting became an essential procedure. Unfortunately, online voting did not eliminate bounced ballot “papers”. Emails bounced! The established companies that were contracted to carry out our online elections sent all bounced ballot emails to one specified person in the CSI. Again, there was fear of bounced email information falling into wrong hands.

I feel that there is one possible solution to this problem. If ballot emails bounce, information should be sent to each member of the Nominations Committee. The member whose email caused the bounce should be made a non-voting member for that election immediately. To be fair, it should be possible for a member to send an SMS anytime from his registered mobile number to get immediately a copy of all that is contained in the CSI database about him. Those who prefer to use email should be able to send an email from their registered email address and get similar information. CSI should also offer members a safe but simple method for keeping their contact information up to date on the CSI database.

Despite this facility, if members do not keep their contact information up to date, they should accept losing their chance to vote in elections till they update their data.

I would also recommend the option of “None of the above” on the ballot.  Members, who are unable to make satisfactory choices for whatever reason, can at least vote for “none of the above”. It would prevent some hacker voting by misusing their credentials. I would also suggest that a member should be considered for being elevated to senior-member status only after voting in a minimum of four elections.

There was another problem with elections. In the early years, Nominations Committees not only supervised the conduct of the election. They also filtered the list of nominated candidates to finalize the ballot paper. They could even decide that one candidate was so good that other candidates should not go on the ballot. The idea was that one should avoid “embarrassing” the favored candidate with a competitive election! Many CSI members felt that this was not a democratic practice. So, the constitution was amended to prevent the Nominations Committee from throwing out candidates meeting all published requirements.

That was a democratic step, but published requirements were not good enough to keep out questionable candidates! The baby had been thrown out along with the bathwater!

I believe that we must have checks and balances at multiple levels of CSI. No one should qualify for being a senior-member without doing above average work within CSI. This work could be in organizing events, serving on elected committees, serving as a volunteer, participating in CSI convention and conferences, lecturing, and teaching. The list is not meant to be an exclusive one.

One should not become an office bearer or a Fellow before being selected as a senior-member. In addition, Fellowship-candidates should be endorsed by a majority of Fellows who vote on the Fellowship.

Companies are required by law to publish the remuneration they offer key managerial personnel. CSI should similarly publish any payments and reimbursements it makes to its office bearers and key management personnel. Committees, including the Nominations Committee and Executive Committee, should publish the minutes of their meetings without delay through the very next issue of CSI Communications. Transparency is an essential part of good governance.

S. Ramani